Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally?

[Matt Lukes]

Does it not keep the plates vertical though?
And there are many things which only sculptural evidence is used to back up the use of. Besides, i am not saying it is so, but I can't find an argument that tells me it is not a possibility.

No, it doesn't- the issue with vertical orientation has nothing to do with the buckles- the plates are rigid, the buckle just helps hold them together. Actually it's just a supplementary piece as well, since the vertical connector belts (later hooks) are what mainly keeps the breastplates in place. The lateral belt just keeps them from spreading at the neckline when one moves. Thus two are really unnecessary.

And how many are actually known? a handfull from all accounts.

Enough from many different sites across the Empire to demonstrate reasonably what the design was, and not a single indication that armor was ever really like that on Trajan's Column except that it was laminated.

I like the idea of the 2 buckles at the front, as it gives a psychological boost, knowing that it will take more that a single lucky stroke of a gladius to cut the fastening of my heart protection, call it a backup system.

But since the lateral buckle doesn't really hold the plates together, this isn't an issue. If it were so significant, it wouldn't have remained a consistent feature through the Corbridge series, but would have changed when the buckles changed to hooks for the B.

That is also the logic I would think was used to advance to the Newstead, as it is harder to cut through a metal fastening, not only the vertical plates. Perhaps no finds are available because the users were more likely to survive combat, reatehr than the unlucky soul whose single strapped armour ended up in the smithies junk box! :wink:

But you have to consider just how often anyone's armor was actually hit- remember it's technically the LAST line of defense and something you want to avoid being hit if at all possible, so the chance of a lucky sword strike that cuts the buckle without hitting the face or anything vital in the process, is pretty remote. I'd think the switch from a leather belt to a metal fastener would have to do more with use damage repair issues than with safety in battle or even battle damage. The leather belt will wear out, and the hinges of the fittings are weak, so I'd bet these things were constantly having to be worked-on. The simple metal loops of the Newstead are tougher and thus doubtless required far less maintenance.

When I finally order a newstead, I will expect total accuracy then, no cheating or browbeating!! :lol: Or to be totally accurate, a Stillfried! :wink:

No problem

Where do you find the info on these finds, as I seem to come up a blank mostly? And also, what period would they cover? Would the Neidermormter helmets go with it? and what kind of gladius?

All over- books, a bunch of stuff from Mike Bishop directly, and from generous fellow RAT members. A lot of the time it's wading through sources to find the gold nuggets... :wink: I'm not so up on helmet use time-periods, so someone else would better answer your question about that, but certainly a Gladius pompeiensis would be an appropriate choice.